tv [untitled] July 13, 2011 6:00pm-6:30pm PDT
permits on december 7, and are equal and is smaller than the existing equipment. we ask that you uphold this permit. vice president garcia: would nextg be compliant of the other standard were applied? >> yes. vice president garcia: who owns that other box? >> i found that no identification on that other box. some of those boxes are not marked. vice president garcia: thank you. >> thank you very much. we will hear from the department now. >> good evening, commissioners. i am from the department of public works. i need to provide a little history on this permit
specifically. at the permit received an application from nextg networks ouon august 15. it was found this location is on a significant street, and on august 18 we submitted a referral to the planning department with plans and photo sims, the full package, so they could do an evaluation. in november of 2010, we received approval from the planning department with conditions. prior to that date, the health department had already reviewed all the equipment to be placed on this pole and determined its satisfied all appropriate regulations. on november 15, after receiving the approval from planning, we provided the approval to permit from -- for nextg networks for
the facility. we received a notice of completion date of december -- excuse me. december 12, 2010 from nextg networks in may of 2011, in this case. the precedent that the department followed, we believe to be appropriate. we follow all regulations as relates to the wireless. at the time of its some middle and issuance. -- at the time it is submitted and issued. this permit was essentially completed in december, 2010. the permit was set to expire in december, 2012, at which point to renewal of this permit would fall under the current legislation as adopted by the
board of supervisors, which governs wireless permits. upon preliminary review of the equipment, the department would determine this to be type 3 facility, which has additional requirements as relates to the notice and other review as we continue on. the department believes that we acted appropriately in this specific case, and we request the board to uphold our decision in the issuance of this permit. commissioner fung: i guess there is a criteria now applied based upon the permitting process correctly?
>> that would be correct. under the legislation, wireless facilities are identified as tier 1, tier 2, or tier 3, and they are all a function of size, specifically. commissioner fung: and one of the main differences would be the level of notice? >> that would be correct, sir. commissioner fung: okay, is this facility approval by your department as currently constituted? >> as currently constituted and moving forward, it would fall under re tier 3 facility, given that it is not a significant street. planning would still need to -- given that it is on a significant street. planning would still need to provide facility. the department would provide notice to the immediate neighbors. i believe currently it is
established 150 feet, mailing and posting. interested parties can then object to this specific location, at which point the department all hearing would be held in a review of this and would continue to move forward with that. there it would be approved, approved with conditions, or reject it and denied -- or rejected and denied. vice president garcia: two questions. 1, d know about the other box? >> actually, sir, yes. that appears to be a comcast box. i believe that is a cooling system for a comcast facility. vice president garcia: is it legal? >> it is placed on a joint pile with pg&e, and comcast is
allowed to do that. avice president garcia: they stated that this board had required some nextg equipment be taken down at another location and it is still there? the know anything about this? >> yes, sir. up on 24th avenue, the board had rejected nextg's argument and directed the department to revoke the permit, which we did. we provided noticed to -- we provided notice to nextg to remove it. nextg did not do so. the bureau chief provided an additional formal letter directing them to remove it. nextg appealed the decision, seeking injunctive relief from the court system. currently, we are going through the legal system. i believe we are currently at superior court, providing a
brief to the judges. vice president garcia: thank you, sir. >> is there any public comment on this item? please step forward. >> hi, my name is jim shea. i live 117 lower terrace, directly across from this. i would like to support his request to have the permit revoked and the box removed. i have lived on lower terrace only a year, but in the course of choosing and buying this house, we looked at least 100 houses. i can tell you there is a difference, neighborhoods that have poles and neighborhoods
that do not. neighborhoods that have poles, where things are not underground, seemed to be getting worse and worse as more and more boxes are added. to me, that argument that this box is smaller than the comcast bought or does not add incrementally to the existing wires and poles is a false argument. every addition makes it worse. our neighborhood is a neighborhood of views. there are tourists walking by every day. they look at a few back towards corona heights, and right now that is diminished by this new box. our view from our house is diminished because we look right on that, but from the street, where the real view is, it is much worse. there are other places to put poles, there are other places to put boxes.
the argument is easier because there are other poles there and it appears this company has taken the easy approach. i believe it is wrong and i believe the board should revoke the permit and force them to remove that box. >> thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, will move into rebuttal. mr. flanagan, you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> actually, i don't have a lot of or bottle. i don't think anything was brought up in it. -- i don't think there was anything brought up new. i did get email and support from other neighbors.
"when i bought this house, i paid extra to get this view." there were a number of other neighbors who were not able to come here tonight. i was not taking notes, and nothing really popped out as far as a rebuttal. actually, she did touch on the fact that she believes she is in compliance of the legislation. as i understand it, there is a lot more requirements that they're not in compliance with, and i do not know the legislation will enough to comment, i am not a lawyer, but in emails with different people, there are a bunch of suggestions this may not meet the requirements. i think if it were to be under review, they would have significant hurdles to cross. again, i just ask that you grant my request to revoke the permit,
and that is all i have to say, thank you. vice president garcia: mr. flanagan, am i over speaking your position that you say when this went to planning, planning did not give enough weight to the view that, in your opinion, it's obstructed by this pole and therefore they should not have signed off on this? or is there more to your argument that i am missing? it seems the issue you also raised had to do with the color of the box, and that is correctable. they could go out there and repaint that. you backed off the position they did not present simulation pictures and nextg has denied any submission had nothing to do with the approval that you raised. i am not trying to reduce your argument to something over the simplified, but i am asking you to correct my impression. >> no, that is the thrust of my
argument, that the pictures they submitted in order for approval by the planning department were misleading. yes, that was a global picture taken of a dumpster a long time ago, -- that was a brutal picture taken of a dumpster a long time ago and would not give any position on the view. but argument is the planning department never had the right materials to actually see if it did diminish the view or not. that is why i am presenting this new evidence. that is the thrust of my argument. the painting problem, they originally had not paid did it at all. upon making my jurisdiction request, they filed a permit the next day and ran out and painted it. aboxley, it went back od -- butdly, they went back to weeks
later and repainted it. it's kind of battleship gray, kind of brown. it is a horrible mess. vice president garcia: thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> backing up just a little bit, going in a different direction than talking about all the things we have done to comply to get this permit, as a company, under the policies the city of san francisco has chosen to go forward and getting better wireless coverage of the city, they have said they would like the equipment to be on utility poles. they did not allow any attachment on streetlights or any of the other city-boned infrastructure or the placement of new poles. so we are trying to cover an area, you have to rely on
existing wood poles. in processr another wood pole, because that is the only way coverage can be obtained. underground, which has not happened so far in the city, there has not been any undergrounding, but at that point, we would try to work with the city to have it on a street light pole or whatever structures are going to be replacing the new poles. we will be going through the re-application under the avalos legislation at that time. whe was allowed under that legislation, it is, and there will be extra processes at that time, but there is no prohibition based on size, there is just tiering.
the antenna is tier 3. tier 1 boxes are supposed to be 3 cubic feet. this box is smaller than that. so what puts us into the tier 3 category is the width. in addition to the cubic requirement, there is also a with the limitation. anything that goes outside of 12 inches automatically goes into tier 3. that is just the way the law is written. at that time, we will go through the process at tier 3, but the permit that was issued was issued properly. i have worked with them a lot and a access google views on a regular basis. whenever he needs more
information he has asked for a different focus from different angles, and in this situation we did not receive any of those requests. but i do know that he goes to the full evaluation and street view is a great way of doing that. it gives real time -- i guess not real time, but a view of that as well. thank you very much. vice president garcia: you heard me ask mr. flanagan the question about the claim in his brief that nextg had submitted pictures that were dated and misleading, in which there was a dumpster. >> right. vice president garcia: you state specifically that no such picture was submitted? >> absolutely. under the requirement, the only picture that we submit is the photo simulation. in the drawings, there is a photo of the pole before, part
of the drawings, and then under the law, we submit -- current applications going forward, we will be submitting simulation that is straight on and then down the street, but that was not a requirement of this application was made in august of 2010. aso we submitted that and that met the requirement. i don't know why there was a picture of a dumpster in any thing. the city uses something called map jack, which i do not know of. i do not how how old that information is. but the plan reduces google street fee. vice president garcia: -- street view. vice president garcia: thank
you. >> thank you very much. >> good evening, commissioners, department of public works once again. i think we need to clarify a little bit what package planning received from the department as part of the evaluation. as part of the evaluation, planning received design drawings from nextg, which i will show on the overhead right now. as part of the package, they were provided this drawing, which shows a picture of the existing pole, along with dimensions showing the facilities of both the intent and the boxes. it is relatively clear from the planners perspective the size of the equipment and the location of the equipment in relation to the pole. we also had a foot dissimulation provided to us from nextg
network as part of the package from nextg. -- we also had a foot note simulation provided to us from nextg networks. in this case, as shown, the pole itself, the drawings shows the equipment and publication and the placement on the existing pole, and additionally, there are details of the specific size of the equipment to be placed on that pole. so i doubt my fellow city employees from planning would have missed this. they would have made a very detailed review, as part of these plans and the violation and recommendation on the approval in this specific case. the departure has nothing to add except to clarify what was
provided -- the department has nothing to add except to clarify what was provided to planning. vice president garcia: as part as you know, there was no dumpster picture submitted to dpw in the plan? >> i doubt there was. if there were, most likely it was a question of specifically which street corner is this at, and we make at that point may have gone to google maps to identify and capture a picture. vice president garcia: a more recent picture? >> yes. commissioner fung: is there an undergrounding program and san francisco? >> yes, for the last several years, the city has underground approximately 17 miles of utilities already. the funding for undergrounding from the city has been expanded
at this point. currently, there are no plans of creating additional underground districts. i would inform the board that upon undergrounding of utilities, all facilities would need to be removed, under the law, no new poles are allowed in underground districts specifically. vice president garcia: out of curiosity, could a neighborhood get together to pay to have their utilities underground? >> yes, that is an option from the neighborhood group. it is a very costly endeavor in these cases. vice president garcia: thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: question for planning. i see a smile. you did not think you were going to get off? mr. sanchez, would it be fair to
say that dpw is acting as the overseer and technical reviewer of these permits, but the planning department is really looking at the more qualitative nature of these permits? >> scott sanchez, planning department. yes, that is correct. it would be similar to the building application process, or the department of building inspection looks at the technical aspects, and we look at more the qualitative, the setback, the standards, but the department of building inspection is the overseer of the permit process. in this case is the department of public works. as the overseer of the permit process. -- in this case is the department of public works that as the overseer of the permit process. commissioner fung: the write up is quite limited.
it's sort of relates to having gone through many years of history with this issue of communication equipment and everything that there are limitations in terms of what planning can or cannot do with respect to the qualitative reviews of these permits? >> that is correct, there are a variety of state and federal regulations that supersede local jurisdiction or limit local jurisdiction. commissioner fung: the letter from your department? the shortness? >> it is to the point.
commissioner peterson: i am happy to start. we have seen a few of these cases now, and i think there has been some conduct in prior cases by the company's that perhaps was improved, but i think in this case in particular, i am inclined to uphold the permit for nextg in this situation. it appears they follow the process. there was notice. it is unfortunate to have these boxes near you, but it is part of the city planning and processed, and i moved to uphold this particular permit. commissioner fung: commissioners, at this is one of those cases whrhere i think most
of us as individuals have strong feelings, but they are personal feelings, and the fact that whether we object to the visual clutter in our city, especially in our residential neighborhoods is not the issue before us. and i have not found any issues of either error or abuse that had shown up in this permitting process. commissioner hwang: i think that the comment from the member of the public was compelling. i think it is important understand how blight works and operates, and that the public
interest is always an issue for us and something that we should weigh in on, notwithstanding the processes that are under gone to get a permit. that is something we should consider. vice president garcia: which leads you to? commissioner hwang: when voting time comes. vice president garcia: it is almost like the look of the brawl. if you live in a neighborhood with poles, you are subjected to perhaps further blight, the word of the night, and if you have an underground services, this issue would not be before us and the box would not be there. but in terms of whether nextg went through the proper processes, they submitted their application to dpw, it was
vetterd by dph, it went through the planning department. i don't think mr. flanagan, it does not seem as if nextg submitted and the misleading photographs. it appears date followed all of the appropriate processes, and i will move that we uphold the permit. on the basis that all proper processes were followed. >> that it went through the planning department review required by the application process at the time. vice president garcia: thank you. >> if you could call the roll, please? >> so to recap, the motion from
the vice-president to uphold this permit on the basis that all proper processes occurred, including planning department review. >> that it underwent the planning department review required -- >> at the time of issuance? >> at the time of the permit application, that applied to this permit application. >> ok, on that motion, what that basis -- b-- with that basis -- [roll-call vote] >> thank you, the vote is 3-1. the permit is upheld on that basis. vice president garcia: adam director, i know that we only have one more case, but someone -- madame director, i know that we only have one more case, but